ZIP code
98195
in Seattle, WashingtonPopulation 2,757
53.87/ 100
Ranked #10,867 of 32,066 US ZIPs (top 34%)
Ranked #282 of 581 Washington ZIPs (top 49%)
Ranked #130 of 166 Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA ZIPs (bottom 22%)
Ranks are modeled estimates — ZIPs a few hundred places apart are effectively tied.
What defines this ZIP
Metrics where this ZIP sits in the tails of the national distribution — the ones that most set it apart. Select any tile for its definition and methodology.
High cholesterol
13.2%
in the bottom 0.4% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with high cholesterol, among those who have ever been screened for it.
Full methodology ›Mammography
52.8%
in the bottom 0.2% nationally
Higher is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of women aged 50–74 who had a mammogram within the past two years.
Full methodology ›High blood pressure
9.1%
in the bottom 0.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have high blood pressure.
Full methodology ›Transit access
450 per 1,000 residents
at the national maximum
Higher is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The number of public-transit stops inside this ZIP’s boundary, per 1,000 residents.
Counted from establishments located inside this ZIP’s boundary, so one just across the line is not counted. Where a ZIP has too few residents for the density to be reliable, no value is published rather than an unreliable one.
Full methodology ›PFAS in drinking water
96.5%
in the top 0.02% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The modeled probability that PFAS “forever chemicals” would be detected in untreated groundwater in this area, the source private wells draw on.
A modeled likelihood for untreated groundwater, the source drawn on by private wells, which are federally unregulated. It is not a measurement of treated water delivered by a public system, and it is not a test of any individual well.
Full methodology ›Diabetes
1.3%
in the bottom 0.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been diagnosed with diabetes.
Full methodology ›Coronary heart disease
0.70%
in the bottom 0.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have coronary heart disease or angina.
Full methodology ›Households without a vehicle
100%
at the national maximum
Lower is healthier
ST99thUS99thDefinition & source ›
The share of households with no vehicle available.
Full methodology ›Obesity
16.5%
in the bottom 0.2% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults with obesity, defined as a body-mass index of 30 or higher.
Full methodology ›Stroke
0.50%
in the bottom 0.3% nationally
Lower is healthier
ST1stUS1stDefinition & source ›
The estimated share of adults who have been told by a health professional that they have had a stroke.
Full methodology ›The read
On the composite measure, ZIP 98195, one of several in Seattle, Washington stands in the top 34% healthiest ZIPs nationally (10,867th) and the top 49% of Washington (282nd).
A balanced set of signals defines this area, not any single one: modeled high cholesterol stands in the bottom 0.4% nationally, and high blood pressure sits in the bottom 0.2% nationally. Transit resides at the national maximum, and modeled diabetes stands in the bottom 0.2% nationally. Modeled coronary heart disease sits in the bottom 0.2% nationally, obesity resides in the bottom 0.2% nationally, and stroke stands in the bottom 0.3% nationally. By contrast, modeled mammography sits in the bottom 0.2% nationally, modeled pfas resides in the top 0.02% nationally, and households without a vehicle stands at the national maximum.
Set beside the wider area around it, transit runs far higher than the surrounding ZIPs on this measure. For clarity, pfas is the man-made "forever chemicals" that build up in the body and environment instead of breaking down; here a modeled estimate of the chance a private well contains them. ZIP 98105, just across the boundary, ranks better overall among the ZIPs nearby. Beyond the headline readings, the area also sits on the healthier half of the national range on at least seven of the ten good-life measures tracked here, from quiet and green space to nearby care, a combination reached by about one in twenty-five US ZIP codes.
What’s driving this score
Nine domains make up the ZipVitals Score — here is how this ZIP does on each, and how much each one counts. Compare it against the US, this state and the Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA metro area.
Compared with the ZIP codes measured across all nine scoring domains — not with all US ZIP codes.
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
in the top 0.9%
21%
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 66%
16%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 90%
11%
Disability
healthier than 85%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 99%
5%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 70%
5%
Holding it back
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 9%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 1%
13%
Mental Health
in the bottom 0.7%
8%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 97%
21%
Risk Behavior
healthier than 66%
11%
Disability
healthier than 76%
7%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 93%
5%
About typical
Healthcare Access
healthier than 55%
5%
Holding it back
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 25%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 10%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 3%
13%
Mental Health
in the bottom 0.3%
8%
Lifting this score
Chronic Disease Burden
healthier than 94%
21%
Climate / Disaster Risk
healthier than 85%
5%
About typical
Risk Behavior
healthier than 52%
11%
Disability
healthier than 50%
7%
Holding it back
Social Need / SDOH
healthier than 6%
16%
Environmental Hazard
healthier than 15%
14%
Preventive Care
healthier than 1%
13%
Mental Health
in the bottom 0.7%
8%
Healthcare Access
healthier than 34%
5%
“Share” is how much of this ZIP’s score the domain accounts for. Percentages are rounded; higher is healthier in every domain. How the score works, and who it compares you with ›
Findings that name this ZIP
One of our published findings lists this ZIP code. Each finding compares one published measure against a stated benchmark, and names only the ZIP codes whose estimates are reliable enough to rank. See all surprising findings.
Heavy environment, light chronic burden
Where the environment and chronic illness point in opposite directions
Environmental-hazard standing 9.0 (bottom 10%); chronic-disease standing 99.1 (top 1%) — 90 points apart, heavier on the environment than it is on chronic illness.
Ranked #17,887 of the 18,187 ZIP codes this finding names, ordered by the gap from cleanest environment to heaviest chronic burden, highest first.
Nearby & similar ZIPs
Editorially selected — see how this ZIP compares to nearby and similar places.
Nearby
98105
Washingtonshares a border
Score 63.16
Closest healthier
98102
Washingtonless than 0.1 mi away
Score 68.75
Similar health profile
84056
Utah100% similar profile
Score 54.94
How these were chosen: only ZIPs with a published Score appear — a nearby ZIP with too little data to score won’t. Nearby means closest by distance between ZIP boundaries, which can cross state lines. A similar health profile is a close match across the nine Score domains, not similar demographics. Distances are measured between ZIP boundaries — ZIPs that touch share a border. How distance is measured
Evidence
Every measure this page draws on, by source. Collapsed by default — the full data stays in the page for search engines either way.
Health OutcomesCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Arthritis among adults | 3.7% | 3.2–4.1 |
| High blood pressure among adults | 9.1% | 8.1–10.0 |
| Cancer (non-skin) or melanoma among adults | 0.6% | 0.6–0.7 |
| Current asthma among adults | 11.5% | 10.5–12.6 |
| Coronary heart disease among adults | 0.7% | 0.6–0.8 |
| Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among adults | 1.5% | 1.2–1.8 |
| Depression among adults | 31.8% | 29.3–34.2 |
| Diagnosed diabetes among adults | 1.3% | 1.1–1.4 |
| High cholesterol among adults who have ever been screened | 13.2% | 12.2–14.5 |
| Obesity among adults | 16.5% | 14.5–18.5 |
| Stroke among adults | 0.5% | 0.4–0.5 |
| All teeth lost among adults aged >=65 years | 29.6% | 23.1–36.4 |
PreventionCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Current lack of health insurance among adults aged 18-64 years | 9.5% | 7.6–11.7 |
| Taking medicine to control high blood pressure among adults with high blood pressure | 13.0% | 11.4–14.9 |
| Visits to doctor for routine checkup within the past year among adults | 58.4% | 55.8–61.2 |
| Cholesterol screening among adults | 58.5% | 54.6–63.0 |
| Colorectal cancer screening among adults aged 45–75 years | 57.1% | 53.6–60.4 |
| Visited dentist or dental clinic in the past year among adults | 55.3% | 52.9–57.8 |
| Mammography use among women aged 50-74 years | 52.8% | 45.4–60.2 |
Health Risk BehaviorsCDC PLACES 2022 / 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Binge drinking among adults | 19.7% | 18.0–21.7 |
| Current cigarette smoking among adults | 5.3% | 4.0–6.4 |
| No leisure-time physical activity among adults | 14.7% | 11.9–17.3 |
| Short sleep duration among adults | 33.1% | 30.6–35.7 |
Health StatusCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Fair or poor self-rated health status among adults | 13.2% | 10.9–15.0 |
| Frequent mental distress among adults | 26.7% | 23.4–29.1 |
| Frequent physical distress among adults | 8.2% | 7.0–9.2 |
DisabilityCDC PLACES 2023 · BRFSS
| Measure | Crude prevalence | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive disability among adults | 23.5% | 19.7–26.1 |
| Any disability among adults | 28.0% | 24.1–30.9 |
| Hearing disability among adults | 2.1% | 1.8–2.4 |
| Independent living disability among adults | 9.5% | 7.7–10.7 |
| Mobility disability among adults | 2.5% | 2.1–2.9 |
| Self-care disability among adults | 1.3% | 1.1–1.5 |
| Vision disability among adults | 4.3% | 3.6–4.9 |
Community & economyCensus ACS 5-Year · 2024 release · observed
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | WA median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Poverty rate | 0.0% | 10.6% (3.1–25.8%) n=32,364 | 9.6% (3.5–22.3%) n=583 |
| Uninsured 18–64 | 7.2% | 9.0% (1.5–24.3%) n=32,286 | 8.2% (1.8–22.7%) n=582 |
| No HS diploma (25+) | 0.0% | 7.9% (1.8–20.7%) n=32,505 | 7.0% (1.5–16.5%) n=588 |
| Bachelor's or higher (25+) | 38.9% | 23.3% (9.2–53.6%) n=32,505 | 27.4% (12.3–59.7%) n=588 |
| Unemployment rate (16+) | 15.5% | 3.9% (0.0–9.8%) n=32,274 | 4.5% (0.0–9.7%) n=584 |
| Households without a vehicle | 100.0% | 3.9% (0.0–12.5%) n=32,322 | 3.7% (0.0–10.2%) n=580 |
| Broadband subscription | 100.0% | 89.3% (75.1–97.1%) n=32,322 | 92.7% (81.1–97.4%) n=580 |
| Housing cost burden (≥30% income) | 100.0% | 23.7% (10.6–40.0%) n=32,322 | 28.9% (14.6–40.6%) n=580 |
| Homeownership rate | 0.0% | 78.7% (51.7–94.0%) n=32,322 | 75.2% (48.2–91.7%) n=580 |
| Crowded housing (>1 per room) | 0.0% | 1.3% (0.0–6.3%) n=32,322 | 2.6% (0.0–7.9%) n=580 |
| Foreign-born population | 18.8% | 2.6% (0.0–18.6%) n=32,553 | 6.7% (0.3–27.6%) n=588 |
| Single-parent households | — | 53.6% (37.3–74.1%) n=32,087 | 54.3% (40.5–76.0%) n=574 |
| Population 65+ | 0.0% | 19.4% (10.8–33.6%) n=32,553 | 18.9% (10.3–36.9%) n=588 |
| Median age | 19.3 yr | 42.2 yr (33.0–56.3) n=32,292 | 41.0 yr (32.9–58.8) n=584 |
| Median household income | — | $72,070 ($46,039–$118,707) n=30,318 | $84,646 ($56,217–$132,145) n=547 |
| Median home value | — | $222,200 ($100,300–$579,820) n=30,049 | $452,750 ($241,540–$826,380) n=542 |
| Median gross rent | — | $1,021 ($677–$1,912) n=25,670 | $1,416 ($840–$2,197) n=476 |
Life expectancyNCHS / RWJF USALEEP · model-based
| Measure | Value | US median (p10–p90) | WA median (p10–p90) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life expectancy unavailable for this ZIP — fewer than 80% of the census tracts that make it up could be matched across the 2010→2020 tract-boundary revision, so no value is published rather than an unreliable one. See how coverage gaps are handled. | |||
More ZIPs to explore ▾More ZIPs to explore ▴
How these lists were built: they draw only from ZIPs that have a published Score, so ZIPs with too little data to score are not listed. Distance-based lists use distance between ZIP boundaries with no state filter, so an out-of-state ZIP can appear. Statistically similar means a close match across the nine Score domains, not a demographic match: the measure is the cosine similarity between two ZIPs’ domain scores, taken over the domains both ZIPs have data for and only where that overlap covers at least six of the nine — and where no ZIP clears that minimum-overlap floor, that list is left out rather than filled with a weak match. How distance is measured